004 Datenverarbeitung; Informatik
Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
Language
- English (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (4)
Keywords
- Clinical predictive modeling (1)
- Cloud Computing (1)
- Forschungsprojekte (1)
- Future SOC Lab (1)
- HiGHmed (1)
- In-Memory Technologie (1)
- Interpretability (1)
- Multicore Architekturen (1)
- Nephrology (1)
- Validation (1)
Correction to: Knowledge bases and software support for variant interpretation in precision oncology
(2021)
HPI Future SOC Lab
(2015)
Das Future SOC Lab am HPI ist eine Kooperation des Hasso-Plattner-Instituts mit verschiedenen Industriepartnern. Seine Aufgabe ist die Ermöglichung und Förderung des Austausches zwischen Forschungsgemeinschaft und Industrie.
Am Lab wird interessierten Wissenschaftlern eine Infrastruktur von neuester Hard- und Software kostenfrei für Forschungszwecke zur Verfügung gestellt. Dazu zählen teilweise noch nicht am Markt verfügbare Technologien, die im normalen Hochschulbereich in der Regel nicht zu finanzieren wären, bspw. Server mit bis zu 64 Cores und 2 TB Hauptspeicher. Diese Angebote richten sich insbesondere an Wissenschaftler in den Gebieten Informatik und Wirtschaftsinformatik. Einige der Schwerpunkte sind Cloud Computing, Parallelisierung und In-Memory Technologien.
In diesem Technischen Bericht werden die Ergebnisse der Forschungsprojekte des Jahres 2015 vorgestellt. Ausgewählte Projekte stellten ihre Ergebnisse am 15. April 2015 und 4. November 2015 im Rahmen der Future SOC Lab Tag Veranstaltungen vor.
Precision oncology is a rapidly evolving interdisciplinary medical specialty. Comprehensive cancer panels are becoming increasingly available at pathology departments worldwide, creating the urgent need for scalable cancer variant annotation and molecularly informed treatment recommendations. A wealth of mainly academia-driven knowledge bases calls for software tools supporting the multi-step diagnostic process. We derive a comprehensive list of knowledge bases relevant for variant interpretation by a review of existing literature followed by a survey among medical experts from university hospitals in Germany. In addition, we review cancer variant interpretation tools, which integrate multiple knowledge bases. We categorize the knowledge bases along the diagnostic process in precision oncology and analyze programmatic access options as well as the integration of knowledge bases into software tools. The most commonly used knowledge bases provide good programmatic access options and have been integrated into a range of software tools. For the wider set of knowledge bases, access options vary across different parts of the diagnostic process. Programmatic access is limited for information regarding clinical classifications of variants and for therapy recommendations. The main issue for databases used for biological classification of pathogenic variants and pathway context information is the lack of standardized interfaces. There is no single cancer variant interpretation tool that integrates all identified knowledge bases. Specialized tools are available and need to be further developed for different steps in the diagnostic process.
Despite advances in machine learning-based clinical prediction models, only few of such models are actually deployed in clinical contexts. Among other reasons, this is due to a lack of validation studies. In this paper, we present and discuss the validation results of a machine learning model for the prediction of acute kidney injury in cardiac surgery patients initially developed on the MIMIC-III dataset when applied to an external cohort of an American research hospital. To help account for the performance differences observed, we utilized interpretability methods based on feature importance, which allowed experts to scrutinize model behavior both at the global and local level, making it possible to gain further insights into why it did not behave as expected on the validation cohort. The knowledge gleaned upon derivation can be potentially useful to assist model update during validation for more generalizable and simpler models. We argue that interpretability methods should be considered by practitioners as a further tool to help explain performance differences and inform model update in validation studies.